Serious question. Do Marxist seriously believe that there is anything scientific about Marxism?

Serious question. Do Marxist seriously believe that there is anything scientific about Marxism?

they do, with a quite religious zeal

Holy shit, a picture of a neckbeard with imaginary leftist text, i'm now convinced of becoming a stormfag.

>you can either be a marxist or a """""stormfag"""""
Hey buddy get this, I love and respect peoples of all creed and complexion, but marxism is a mental illness for real

I had to put a picture to create the thread and it fits pretty nice. ou haven't answered the question pinko

>ou haven't answered the question pinko
I like marx. His work is pretty flawed though.

That wasn't the question though
>Do Marxist seriously believe that there is anything scientific about Marxism?

These were the words in K marxs unreleased communist manifesto II: Electric Boogaloo.

I don't think i can consider myself a marxist, even if i agree with him in some stuff. You asked me to answer and i did. His economic theory is at least on par with the "scientific" economic works of his time, same as his historiography (leaving the historicist garbage aside), but both are flawed.

Marxism itself is a conceptual tool. But, it leads to empirical economic observations and predictions.

So, it depends on what you mean by "scientific'. He's got a theory that makes empirical predictions. Some of those predictions have been wrong (namely involving worker revolts)- but there are definitions of "scientific" that allow theories which make inaccurate empirical predictions to still be considered scientific.

You loadstars need to up your meme game.

>there are definitions of "scientific" that allow theories which make inaccurate empirical predictions to still be considered scientific.
>This is actually the argument that Marxists use to justify their sacred scriptures

Some of them definitely believe in that, hardcore ones mostly.

Marxism is scientific. It just like isn't true. Marx himself made many predictions that could been tested directly.

Science can made mistakes, user. Remember when they said that being gay is mental illness, but it isn't anymore?

>Remember when they said that being gay is mental illness
It is a hormonal issue not mental.Still faggots are child depredators, AID's hosts and human trash

> faggots are child depredators
Is it confirmed?

>Is it confirmed?
40% of all child molestors are faggots.Faggots are 1% of the world's population

source?

Could them be a child molestors first and faggots second? Like they just want to rape kids but who cares female one or male? Or they are confirmed gays who just into child raping also?

Lots of "science" took Euclid's 5th postulate for granted. And, as it turns out, that doesn't accurately represent space. Those false/inaccurate theories and measurements are still science. They were all empirical/predictive/testable/falsifiable models of phenomena- they just happened to be wrong. The history of science is riddled with those kinds of mistakes. That's why it's not too far off scientists' definition of science that allows for false theories and inaccurate predictions to still fall under the rubric of science.

It's not that science must be true to be considered 'science', otherwise epistemological skepticism would take hold and we wouldn't know anything- much less whether we were right about a given theory. And so science would be impossible if we had to know whether our theories were true in order to call them scientific theories.

The better question is what exactly marxism predicted that we can test? Communism is a meme because you can wait for it for billions years.

>The Family Research Institute reports “The 1948 Kinsey survey found that 37% of the gays and 2% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-17-yr-olds, and 28% of the gays and 1% of the lesbians admitted to sexual relations with under-16-yr-olds while they themselves were aged 18 or older. (18)”

There are a fuckload of sacred cow predictions in Marxian economics like the TRPF.

Are you seriously a logical positivist or merely uneducated when it comes to scientific theory?

Well, one thing is that the rate of profit in capitalism would tend to fall- according to Marx.

Which is true sometimes- but it's not a law as Marx suggests. For instance, companies refusing to increase workers' real income over time can lead to higher profits.

Also, it's dubious that worker exploitation is the sole source of profit for capitalists. There are other things you can exploit for profit- natural resources, regulations, political turmoil, even non-workers..etc.

There's plenty of problems you can find, but usually you can rescue Marx- if nothing else through revision and reformulation.

Then very clearly faggots aren't child predators you fucking tool, did you even read what you wrote.